Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

Private Attorney General: $165,072.50 Attorney’s Fees Award On CEQA Win To Prevailing Litigant Is Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

Housing Accountability Act Standards Can Be Factored Into The Equation, With Trade Union Affiliations Not Showing It Made A Difference On The Financial Cost/Benefit Factor. In Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility v. City of Inglewood, Case No. B345195 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Mar. 19, 2026) (unpublished), petitioner won a CEQA challenge based on Housing Accountability […]

Private Attorney General: CCP § 1021 Catalyst Fee Recovery Not Available To Plaintiffs Where The Other Side Voluntarily Provided Relief Only After Plaintiffs Had Lost Relief In A Prior Merits Judgment

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

Case Found That Plaintiffs Could Not Meet The Successful Parties Element, Even Under A Catalyst Theory. In Physicians for Social Responsibility – L.A. v. Dept. of Toxic Substances Control, Case No. C100487 (3d Dist. Mar. 4, 2026) (published), the appellate court affirmed a denial of private attorney general fees, under a catalyst theory, where the

Private Attorney General: Where Plaintiffs Obtained Revisions Under Certain Deceptive Contracts, They Were Entitled To CCP § 1021.5 Fees Of $1.5 Million

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

Plaintiff Lost Restitution Claims Under The UCL, But They Were A Catalyst. As any defense attorney knows in public interest or class action cases, a catalyst theory is something to pay close attention to.  It may allow for recovery of private attorney general fees even if the plaintiff ultimately does not receive restitution. Howard v.

Private Attorney General: Lower Court Abused Its Discretion In Awarding Fees Under CCP § 1021.5 Without Considering Specific Factors Outlined In The Housing Accountability Act

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

$1,286,144.37 Fee Award Against City Reversed And Remanded.  Coalition of Pacificans for An Updated Plan v. City Council of the City of Pacifica, Case No. A170704 (1st Dist., Div. 4 Dec. 30, 2025) (partially published; substantive fee discussion published) stands for the proposition that in fashioning a private attorney general fee award under CCP §

Private Attorney General: Where Prior Prevailing Parties Had Their Rulings Abrogated By Legislative Action Resulting In A Reversal Of Prior Opinions, They Were Not Successful Under CCP § 1021.5

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

Prior Opinions In Plaintiffs’ Favor Had No Precedential Value. In Make UC A Good Neighbor et al. v. Regents of University of California, Case No. A172510 (1st Dist., Div. 5 Dec. 19, 2025) (published), the appellate court affirmed that plaintiffs were not “successful” parties for private attorney general purposes despite winning favorable appellate precedents at

Private Attorney General: Fee Award Denied To CEQA Plaintiffs After Remand Of A Prior Published Opinion Reversing A Fee Denial And Remanding For A Restudy

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

Plaintiffs Failed To Meet Their Ultimate Burden Of Showing The Litigation Was A Catalyst For What Happened Relating To The WaterFix Project. In an earlier opinion, the Third District reversed the denial of an attorney’s fees award to CEQA litigants proceeding on a catalyst theory under CCP § 1021.5, determining that it could not be

Private Attorney General:  Where Plaintiff Student’s Fraud/Negligence Verdicts Vindicated Primarily Her Personal Interests, CCP § 1021.5 Fees Correctly Were Denied

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

No Evidence That Other Students Were Exposed To Activities Of Which She Complained. In Stallo v. Mt. San Jacinto Community College Dist., Case No. E081215 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Dec. 5, 2025) (unpublished), plaintiff student discovered someone submitted false information to obtain federal monetary relief for her, with plaintiff returning the money and requesting defendants

Multipliers, Private Attorney General, Reasonableness of Fees: 2/3 DCA Reverses And Remands For Reconsideration An Attorney Fees Award Of $83,197.50 – Finding Abuse Of Discretion Where Trial Court Awarded Excessive Fees Unsupported By The Record

Cases: Multipliers, Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5), Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

The Trial Court, Which Is Not Allowed To Rubberstamp An Attorney Fees Request, Failed To Explain Its Reasoning For The Award That Included A $750 Hourly Rate And A 1.5 Positive Multiplier Despite The Lack Of Complexity and Risk Involved In The Case In Immigrant Rights Defense Council, LLC v. Ramirez, Case No. B342780 (2d

Private Attorney General: Where Winning Plaintiff Avoided A Catastrophic Disruption Of Its Business By Challenging Rescission Of A Scrap Metal Policy, It Properly Was Denied CCP Section 1021.5 Fees Under Whitley Cost-Benefit Analysis

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

Plaintiff’s Financial Burden Not Out Of Proportion To Its Individual Stake In The Case. In Pacific Auto Recycling Centers, Inc. v. Calif. Dept. of Toxic Substances Control, Case No. B338236 (2d Dist., Div. 1 Sept. 30, 2025) (unpublished), PARC, a scrap metal recycler, successfully challenged DTSC’s rescission of a policy—one which had excluded some scrap

Employment, Private Attorney General: Labor Code Section 432.6 Polygraph Rights Provision Did Not Justify Fee Award For September 2018 Firing And Where Waiver Of Employment Rights Was Not Involved

Cases: Employment, Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

CCP Section 1021.5 Was Inapt Because Plaintiff Was Only Vindicating Personal Wrongs. In McDoniel v. Kavry Mgt., LLC, Case No. D084660 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Sept. 30, 2025) (published), plaintiff was not advised of rights to refuse to submit to a polygraph test as a condition of continued employment under Labor Code section 432.2 and

Scroll to Top